Methods and vaccines for providing in OVO protection against turkey rhinotracheitis

ABSTRACT

Methods and compositions for protecting avian hosts (e.g., turkeys and/or chickens) from turkey rhinotracheitis virus and/or TRT or SHS respiratory distress utilize in ovo administration of live, avirulent strains of TRTV at appropriate dosage levels on a per egg basis to provide an effective and efficient vaccination having acceptable safety and efficacy features, and additionally provides higher titers in vaccinated birds than conventionally administered vaccines.

[0001] This application claims priority from copending provisional application serial No. 60/252,162, filed on Nov. 21, 2000, the entire disclosure of which is hereby incorporated by reference.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

[0002] The invention is directed to useful methods for providing in ovo protection against turkey rhinotracheitis (TRT) and/or “Swollen Head Syndrome” (SHS) in avian hosts such as turkeys and chickens. More particularly, vaccines against TRT have proven to be both safe and efficacious upon appropriate in ovo administration to avian hosts as described herein.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

[0003] TRT is an upper respiratory tract infection of turkeys that is caused by a pneumovirus. It is a highly contagious, acute disease that afflicts turkeys of all ages. The clinical symptoms of TRT infection include a marked, frequently frothy nasal discharge, rales, snicking, sneezing, and head shaking. Ocular discharge or swollen infraorbital sinuses may also be observed in infected turkeys.

[0004] Antibodies to TRT virus (TRTV) have been detected in some chicken flocks (both broilers and broilers/breeders) suffering from Swollen Head Syndrome (SHS). It is postulated that TRTV plays a role in the etiology of SHS and related respiratory distress.

[0005] Commercially-available vaccines for TRT are not administered in ovo. Rather, they are administered post-hatch in a variety of formats. Typically, such vaccines are administered by the labor-intensive methods of spraying (e.g., hand spray, knapsack spray, or automated spray equipment) or in drops (eye or nose).

[0006] As more fully explained below, the in ovo administration methods of using TRT vaccines modified for in ovo use provides distinctive advantages over the inconvenient and time-consuming post-hatch routes of administration presently available.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

[0007] The present invention utilizes commercially-available TRT vaccines adapted for the in ovo methods of administration of the present invention. Experimental results establish the safety and efficacy of the in ovo administration of these vaccines to turkeys and to chickens using appropriate dosing parameters.

[0008] The methods of the present invention can be utilized to protect an avian host against TRT, and/or TRT or SHS-related respiratory distress by in ovo administration of such vaccines.

[0009] It is thus an object of the present invention to provide a method of protection avian hosts from TRT and/or TRT or SHS-related respiratory distress using in ovo vaccination techniques which are easier and less expensive to apply to large populations of birds.

[0010] It is further an object of the present invention to provide such in ovo vaccination using vaccines in dosages which provide a suitable immunological response in hatched avian hosts without adversely affecting hatch rates.

[0011] It is a still further object of this invention to provide protection against SHS-related respiratory distress using TRT vaccines adapted for in ovo administration.

[0012] It is yet another object of the present invention to provide a method of vaccinating avian hosts against TRT and/or TRT or SHS-respiratory distress which provides elevated titers to TRTV as compared to conventionally vaccinated birds, using lesser amounts of vaccine antigen, thus resulting in cost savings.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0013] The present invention provides a method for immunizing in ovo avian hosts against TRTV, and thus providing protection against TRT and/or TRT and SHS respiratory distress. The vaccines utilized in the methods of the present invention can advantageously be prepared from commercially-available TRT vaccines. Especially suitable for use in the present invention is the commercially available Poulvac® TRT vaccine, available from Fort Dodge Animal Health, Fort Dodge, Iowa or Weesp, The Netherlands. The commercial formulation of Poulvac® TRT contains attenuated TRTV, strain K, with a titer of not less than 10^(3.2) TCID₅₀ per dose and is not approved or indicated for in ovo administration. Throughout this application, “TCID₅₀” refers to a 50% tissue culture infectious dose.

[0014] Typically, the vaccine is resuspended in a suitable vehicle so as to provide a TCID₅₀ in the range of about 10^(3.2) to about 10^(4.5), and administered in an amount of approximately 0.05 to 0.1 ml per egg, depending upon the avian species being immunized. Administration may be by hand, but is more typically and economically administered by using commercially available egg injection equipment such as that available from Embrex, Inc., North Carolina. The exact dosage to be administered will depend upon the avian species to which the vaccine is to be delivered, e.g., smaller birds will require smaller doses. Administration of the vaccine typically occurs on or before day 24 of incubation (e.g., turkeys), but other in ovo vaccination times are within the scope of the invention, for example, on or before day 18 of incubation (e.g., chickens).

[0015] Avian hosts for which the vaccines and methods of the present invention are intended include chickens, ducks, turkeys, geese, bantams, quail and pigeons. Preferred avian species are the commercially important poultry birds such as chickens, ducks and turkeys.

[0016] It has surprisingly been found that not only is the in ovo method of vaccination safe and easier to administer, but that higher titers are found in avian hosts which have been immunized in this manner.

[0017] In addition, the vaccine and method of administration result in substantially no decrease in the percentage of eggs that hatch after in ovo vaccination, when compared to a substantially identical control (non-vaccinated) group. Preferably, this decrease is less than about 10%, and more preferably is less than about 5% relative to the percentage that hatch in the control group. Even more desirable is a decrease of less than about 1-2%. In some embodiments, the vaccine and method of the invention may actually increase the percentage of eggs that hatch, sometimes by as much as about 1-2% or even more. Thus, the vaccine is both safe and effective for administration to avian species such as chickens and turkeys.

[0018] The following examples describe in detail the methods and techniques illustrative of the present invention. It will be apparent to those skilled in the art that many modifications, both of materials and methods, may be practiced without departing from the purpose and intent of this disclosure.

EXAMPLES Example 1 Safety Study for in ovo Turkey Administration

[0019] Fertile turkey eggs for hatching were obtained from parent turkey flocks which were known to be free of TRTV; and which had not been previously vaccinated against TRT. These eggs were randomly assigned to 2 different groups.

[0020] The first group of 76 fertile eggs was administered the vaccine in ovo on day 24 of incubation. The first day of incubation is considered day 0. Eggs are laid approximately 2-7 days before incubation. Poulvac® TRT (batch TR015, expiration date Jun. 24, 1997 containing a titer of 107.5 TCID₅₀) was used to prepare the in ovo vaccine. Three vials of the commercial product were each resuspended in 10 ml of sterile saline to give a resulting suspension having a titer of 105.5 TCID₅₀ of vaccine per 0.1 ml. These contents were well mixed and pooled. The mixed/pooled contents are redesignated as the “IOV” hereinafter in Example 1.

[0021] The in ovo administration used 0.1 ml of the IOV per egg containing a titer of 105.5 TCID₅₀, injected into the amniotic fluid of each of the 76 fertile eggs. Thereafter, these eggs were immediately placed into an incubator (without turning) and left to hatch in the isolation pen in which they were housed. These eggs/hatchlings are referred to as the vaccinated birds.

[0022] A second group of 66 fertile eggs were not vaccinated and were left to hatch under similar conditions in a second isolation pen. These eggs/hatchlings are referred to as the negative control birds.

[0023] For both the vaccinated birds and the negative control birds, hatching was recorded on days 27, 28, and 29 of incubation. Table 1 presents the experimentally-observed hatchability percentages. With respect to hatchability, the in ovo vaccination of the present invention produced excellent results with 93.4% of the vaccinated eggs hatching versus 92.4% of the negative control eggs hatching. TABLE 1 Hatchability Percentages Birds Day 27 Day 28 Day 29 Total Vaccinated 19.7% 73.7% 0% 93.4% Negative Control 28.8% 63.6% 0% 92.4%

[0024] After hatching, 25 poults from each group (i.e., the vaccinated birds and the negative control birds) were selected at random and placed on the floor on shavings in each of the respective isolation pens. The remaining birds from each group were culled.

[0025] Within each group, each bird was examined daily for clinical signs for a period of 21 days. The presence of nasal exudate was assessed by squeezing the beak. The severity of clinical disease was scored according to Table 2. TABLE 2 Clinical Scoring System score experimentally-observed symptoms 0 none 1 clear nasal exudate 2 turbid nasal exudate 3 swollen infraorbital sinuses or frothy eyes and 1 or 2

[0026] The total daily score of a group of birds was calculated by summarizing the individual scores of each bird on that day. Table 3 presents the experimentally-observed clinical signs using the relative scoring system of Table 2. TABLE 3 Clinical Examination Results of Vaccinated Birds Age in days of the examined bird Bird # 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 78 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 79 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 91 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 0 0 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Total 0 2 4 9 7 4 4 1 0 Mean Score/ 0 0.08 0.16 0.36 0.28 0.16 0.16 0.04 0 Bird # Positive 0 1 3 6 4 2 2 1 0

[0027] The negative control birds were likewise examined for any clinical signs and, no abnormalities were observed, i.e., all had a score of zero.

[0028] The results of the above observations establish the safety of the in ovo vaccination methods of the present invention. The highest Mean Score/Bird (i.e., 0.36) for 6-day old birds provided an adequate margin of safety and indicated only slight/mild symptoms of TRT.

[0029] Serological analysis was also performed by collecting blood collected from 10 birds within the parent turkey flock 6½ weeks after the date that the eggs were received. Blood was also collected from the following 4 sets of birds: (a) at an age of 1 day, from 20 negative control birds; (b) at an age of 21 days, from 21 negative control birds; (c) at an age of 1 day, from 20 vaccinated birds; and (d) at an age of 21 days, from 20 vaccinated birds.

[0030] Serological analysis of the individual blood samples indicated titers of antibodies to TRTV. This analysis used an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) technique which uses an A type antigen and expressed as ²log titers. Experimentally-measured titers of ²log titer ≧6.0 were taken to be positive. The geometrical mean (GM) and standard deviation (SD) for the experimentally-measured titers were also calculated. The titer analysis established the following results. The parent turkey flock was free of TRTV [see GM=5.04 in comparison to the >6.0 positive cut-off value]. Of the 10 birds, one had an elevated titer of 7.7. Further, the GM titers for the 1-day old negative control birds and vaccinated birds were almost identical; i.e., respectively, 4.05 and 4.06. However, two birds among the vaccinated birds had positive titers [see titer values of 7.1 and 8.1—each ≧6.0]. By contrast, none of the negative control birds had titers ≧6.0. The SD for the negative control birds and the vaccinated birds were, respectively, 0.82 and 1.46.

[0031] The 21-day old blood sampling tests also showed clear differences in the experimentally-measured titers. For the negative control birds, the GM decreased to 3.53 and the SD decreased to 0.46. In direct contrast, for the vaccinated birds, the GM increased to 10.53 and the SD increased to 0.85. Accordingly, the vaccinated birds had greatly elevated titers to TRTV.

[0032] In the vaccinated birds, the serological response at an age of 21 days was very high. This response was even higher than that typically encountered using the same dose (via eye drop vaccination) for 1-day old birds. TRTV antibody titers having a GM=10.5 are normally only seen following a challenge with a virulent strain of TRTV. For comparison, two trials using eye drop vaccinations with 105.5 TCID₅₀ Poulvac® TRT to susceptible turkey poults (at an age of 1 day) yielded mean antibody titers of, respectively, 8.3 and 8.7 for blood samples collected at an age of 21 days.

[0033] Table 4 presents the data supporting this serological testing of the parent turkey flock, the negative control birds, and the vaccinated birds. TABLE 4 TRTV Titers Parent Flock Negative Control Birds Vaccinated Birds 6½ weeks 1-day age 21-day age 1-day age 21-day age 3.7 3.0 3.8 5.6 11.4 5.5 3.0 3.7 3.9 10.4 4.7 4.5 3.8 4.9 9.5 5.9 4.3 3.0 3.4 11.6 7.7 3.0 3.0 4.0 9.3 5.6 4.8 3.4 3.0 9.9 5.4 4.2 3.6 3.0 11.8 3.7 4.7 3.6 3.0 11.1 5.2 3.9 4.2 3.0 11.0 3.0 3.0 4.5 7.1 9.7 4.7 4.3 5.2 11.1 5.0 3.2 3.9 9.1 3.0 3.9 4.4 11.3 4.8 3.0 3.0 10.6 3.3 3.8 8.1 11.5 5.1 3.5 3.3 11.2 4.5 3.0 3.0 10.5 4.1 3.0 3.0 10.0 5.1 3.5 3.0 9.9 3.0 3.3 3.5 9.6 3.0 GM 5.04 4.05 3.53 4.06 10.53 SD 1.35 0.82 0.46 1.46 0.85

[0034] Thus, in ovo administration (at day 24 of incubation) of an IOV of the present invention at 105.5 TCID₅₀ to fertile turkey eggs provides the necessary safety with respect to both hatchability and clinical signs, as well as an enhanced immune response over conventionally administered vaccines.

Example 2 Safety Study for in ovo Chicken Administration

[0035] Specific pathogen-free (hereinafter, “SPF) White Leghorn eggs were obtained from a commercial source (Broekman Instituut BV, Someren, The Netherlands). 120 SPF eggs were placed in an incubator, and after 18 days of incubation, the eggs were candled. This resulted in 5 non-fertilized eggs being rejected and 115 fertilized eggs being accepted. Of the 115 accepted eggs, 100 were randomly selected for in ovo vaccination. These 100 eggs were divided into three groups as follows:

[0036] Group 1 eggs/hatchlings were tagged for identification with an orange wing mark comprising a number. Group 1 consisted of 30 eggs which, as described below, received an in ovo vaccine at a per egg calculated dose of a titer of 105.5 TCID₅₀.

[0037] Group 2 eggs/hatchlings were tagged for identification with a green wing mark comprising a number. Group 2 consisted of 40 eggs which, as described below, received an in ovo saline solution of equal volume to the vaccine injected to the Group 1 eggs.

[0038] Group 3 eggs/hatchlings were not tagged. Group 3 consisted of 30 eggs which did not receive any in ovo administration (either of the vaccine or of the saline solution).

[0039] The number on the wing marks was used only if the chick showed clinical signs of either TRT or SHS.

[0040] The chickens of both Groups 1 and 2 were housed in the same animal room in which they hatched. Appropriate conditions (e.g., feed, drinking water, wood shavings as bedding materials, temperatures, relative humidities, etc.) were maintained.

[0041] The time schedule for this experiment was as follows: The first day of incubation of the eggs of Groups 1, 2, and 3 was termed day 0 of incubation. The date of in ovo administration to the eggs of Group 1 and Group 2 of, respectively, a vaccine and a saline solution was day 18 of incubation. The calculated hatching date corresponded to day 21 of incubation. The study was concluded on a post-hatch date equivalent to day 46 of incubation.

[0042] To prepare the vaccine for in ovo administration, a commercially-available vaccine, Poulvac® TRT containing 2000 doses per vial, available from Fort Dodge Animal Health in Fort Dodge, Iowa or Weesp, The Netherlands was used. On a per dose basis, this vaccine had a titer of 10^(4.2) TCID₅₀. Twelve (12) vials of this vaccine were resuspended in phosphate-buffered-saline (hereinafter, “PBS”), using 5 ml of PBS per vial of vaccine. The resulting contents were well mixed and pooled. The resuspended material had a calculated titer of 105.5 TCID₅₀ and a total volume of 60 ml. This vaccine is hereinafter referred to as the “IOV”.

[0043] On day 18 of incubation, the IOV vaccine was administered in ovo via injection using a commercially-available Inovoject® egg injection machine from Embrex, Inc., North Carolina to the eggs of Group I. The egg-injection administration of the IOV was conducted in accordance with standard procedures. In like manner, a commercially-available saline solution, CLEAR-FLEX® INFUSIEVLOESISTOF, from Bieffle Medital SpA, Italy was administered to the eggs of Group 2.

[0044] Table 5 shows the treatment of the eggs within Groups 1, 2, and 3. TABLE 5 Treatment Of Eggs Group # # eggs/group calculated dose per egg 1 30 10^(5.5) TCID₅₀ vaccine 2 40 only saline solution 3 30 no treatment

[0045] The hatchability percentages of eggs from Groups 1, 2, and 3 were experimentally observed and calculated. In brief, the following exceptions were noted. Because of spina bifida skeletal abnormalities (which were not attributed to any adverse action of the in ovo vaccination), two chicks from Group 1 were removed from the study directly after they were hatched and before they were tagged with an identifying wing mark. These two chicks were excluded from the Group 1 calculated hatchability percentages. Also from Group 1, one chick was injured on the toes and removed from the study after it had been tagged. Post-mortem examination of this chick revealed no signs of either TRT or of any other disease or of any other disorders. This one chick was likewise excluded from the Group 1 calculated hatchability percentages. With respect to the eggs/hatchlings of Group 2, one chick died after being hatched but before being tagged with an identifying wing mark. This chick was similarly excluded from the Group 2 calculated hatchability percentages.

[0046] As planned, the hatchlings of both Groups 1 and 2 were studied and examined for a 25-day observation period. During this period, none of the chicks showed clinical signs of either TRT or SHS. All 30 eggs of Group 3 hatched. On the day they hatched, all 30 chicks were decapitated for blood sampling and subsequent analysis as described later.

[0047] Table 6 presents the experimentally-observed hatchability and mortality results for each of Groups 1, 2, and 3. These results established that the in ovo vaccination of the present invention was safe with respect both hatchability and clinical signs of TRT and/or SHS. TABLE 6 Hatchability/Mortality Results Group 1 (orange wing Group 2 Group 3 mark) (green wing mark) (no wing mark) vaccine saline no treatment Incubated 30 40 30 Vaccinated 30 40 0 Hatched 28 40 30 Percentage of eggs: Vaccinated 100 100 0 Hatched 93.3 100 100

[0048] The body weights of the chicks from both Group 1 (vaccine) and Group 2 (saline) were obtained on day 25. Mean body weight of the Group 1 chicks was 209 grams with a standard deviation of 22.1. For the Group 2 chicks, the mean body weight was 217 grams with a standard deviation of 24.8. The body weights of Groups 1 and 2 did not differ significantly as statistically determined using a 2-sided Student's t test with P=0.18). These results established that the in ovo vaccination of the present invention did not compromise the resulting day 25 body weight (which is commercially important) in comparison to that obtained with an in ovo injection of a physiological saline solution.

[0049] To confirm the TRT-free status of the SPF eggs used in Groups 1, 2, and 3, on the day the Group 3 eggs hatched, the chicks were killed by decapitation and blood samples were collected and analyzed. ELISA testing did not detect any antibodies to TRTV which confirms the TRT-free status of the SPF eggs used in this study.

[0050] This study established that the in ovo vaccination to SPF chicken eggs was safe with respect to each of hatchability, mortality, clinical signs of TRT and/or SHS, and day 25 body weight.

Example 3 Efficacy Study for in ovo SPF Chicken Vaccines

[0051] The aim of this study was to ascertain whether in ovo vaccination of 18-day old-chicken embryos is efficacious in preventing TRT and/or SHS disease after virulent challenge at 3 or 6 weeks of age. As established below, in ovo vaccination of susceptible 18-day-old fertile SPF chicken eggs with 10^(4.2) TCID₅₀ is safe while a dose of 10^(3.2) TCID₅₀ is efficacious against clinical disease.

[0052] Fertile eggs for hatching were obtained from a flock of SPF White Leghorn parents purchased from Whickham Laboratories, United Kingdom.

[0053] A commercially-available TRT vaccine, Poulvac® TRT, available from Fort Dodge Animal Health in Fort Dodge, Iowa or Weesp, The Netherlands was obtained. The in ovo vaccines of the present invention are prepared from this Poulvac® TRT as follows. Three (3) vials of the commercial vaccine containing a titer of 107.5 TCID₅₀ were each resuspended in 4 ml of sterile water, and well mixed and pooled. Then 0.4 ml was removed and added to 19.6 ml of sterile PBS to give a final dilution equivalent to 200 ml per vial and a resulting suspension containing a titer of 10^(4.2) TCID₅₀ of vaccine per 0.1 ml. This vaccine was further diluted by removing 2 ml and adding it to 18 ml of sterile PBS to give a resulting suspension of 10^(3.2) TCID₅₀ of vaccine per 0.1 ml.

[0054] The challenge virus was prepared as follows. TRTV from the UK strain BUT 8544, isolated by Dr. R. C. Jones at Liverpool University (U.K.), was passaged 23 times in trachea organ culture (hereinafter, “TOC”), once in poults, reisolated, and passaged once more in TOC. The titer of this challenge virus was 10^(4.5) TCID₅₀ per ml.

[0055] After 18 days of incubation, a first set of 70 fertile eggs (hereinafter, “Set 1”) were inoculated in ovo with 0.1 ml of the reconstituted TRT vaccine containing 10^(3.2) TCID₅₀ as described above. A second set of 70 eggs (hereinafter, “Set 2”) was likewise inoculated with 0.1 ml of the reconstituted TRT vaccine containing 10^(4.2) TCID₅₀ as described above. The eggs were immediately placed into an incubator (without turning) and left to hatch in the pen in which they were housed. The eggs of Sets 1 and 2 were housed separately in similar isolation pens. A third set of 70 fertile eggs did not receive any in ovo administrations (hereinafter, “Set 3”). Set 3 is hereinafter referred to as the negative control birds. These eggs were housed in a third isolation pen.

[0056] Hatching was recorded on days 20, 21, 22, and 23 post incubation (day zero is first day of incubation). After hatch, excess birds were culled at one-day-old to leave fifty birds per set. For Sets 1, 2, and 3, the experimentally-recorded hatchability percentages were, respectively, 91%, 94%, and 92%. This establishes that, in ovo vaccination with titers of 10^(3.2) TCID₅₀ and 10^(4.2) TCID₅₀ were safe with respect to hatchability.

[0057] At three weeks of age, ten birds from each vaccinated group (i.e., Sets 1 and 2) and from the negative control birds (i.e., Set 3) were wing-tagged and moved into a fourth isolation pen. Each bird was then administered with the previously described challenge virus via an eye drop containing a dose of 10^(3.5) TCID₅₀ (virulent) TRTV in 0.1 ml. At 6 weeks of age, an additional 10 birds was likewise challenged with a virulent strain of TRTV. However, because of the increased age of these birds, the challenge dose was increased to 103.8 TCID₅₀ (virulent) TRTV in 0.2 ml on a per bird basis.

[0058] The challenged birds were experimentally monitored for 14 days, after which they were bled and killed. The observed signs were recorded using the Table 2 Clinical Scoring System as used in Example 1. The total daily score of a group of birds was calculated by summarizing the individual scores of each bird on that day. The cumulative score is the sum of the mean daily scores at days 3-8. The χ² test was used to analyze the data. The total clinical signs seen in the 2 vaccinated groups (Sets 1 and 2) from days 3-8 was compared to those seen in the (Set 3) positive controls on the same days for both the 3-week and 6-week challenges. This monitoring established the following results.

[0059] With respect to the 3-week challenge with the virulent TRTV strain at a titer of 10^(3.5) TCID₅₀, 90% of the unvaccinated control birds of Set 3 showed clinical signs. In direct contrast, smaller percentages of the vaccinated birds of Sets 1 and 2 showed clinical signs. For Set 1 (vaccinated with a titer of 10^(3.2) TCID₅₀ per egg), only 50% of the birds showed clinical signs. For Set 2 (vaccinated with a titer of 10^(4.2) TCID₅₀ per egg), only 30% of the birds showed clinical signs. In Set 3, only one bird remained completely clear of clinical signs. In contrast, five birds from Set 1 and seven birds from Set 2 remained completely clear of clinical signs.

[0060] With respect to the 6-week challenge with the virulent TRTV strain at a titer of 103.8 TCID₅₀, 80% of the unvaccinated control birds of Set 3 showed clinical signs. In direct contrast, smaller percentages of the vaccinated birds of Sets 1 and 2 showed clinical signs. For Set 1 (vaccinated with a titer of 10^(3.2) TCID₅₀ per egg), only 20% of the birds showed clinical signs. For Set 2 (vaccinated with a titer of 10^(4.2) TCID₅₀ per egg), only 10% of the birds showed clinical signs.

[0061] χ2 statistical analysis established, for the 6-week challenge, that the experimentally-observed clinical signs in both vaccinated groups of birds (Sets 1 and 2) were significantly less severe than those recorded in the unvaccinated negative control birds of Set 3 (see P<0.01).

[0062] Tables 7, 8, and 9 present these results for, respectively, the 3-week challenge, the 6-week challenge, and the chi-squared statistical analysis as discussed above. TABLE 7 Clinical Signs For 3-Week Challenge # of days post-challenge with virulent TRTV strain in eye drops at a dose of 10^(3.5) TCID₅₀ TRTV in 0.1 ml per bird 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 bird # for Set 1 (vaccinated with 10^(3.2) TCID₅₀) 104 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 106 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 107 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 117 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 118 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 127 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 139 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 Total Daily 0 5 7 6 0 0 0 0 Score Mean Daily 0 0.5 0.7 0.6 0 0 0 0 Score Set 1 Cumulative Score per Bird = 1.8 bird # for Set 2 (vaccinated with 10^(4.2) TCID₅₀) 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 2 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Daily 3 2 4 2 0 1 0 0 Score Mean Daily 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0 0.1 0 0 Score Set 2 Cumulative Score per Bird = 1.2 bird # for Set 3 (not vaccinated) 301 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 311 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 313 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 314 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 316 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 321 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 322 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 327 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 331 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 334 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 Total Daily 0 8 14 15 3 0 0 0 Score Mean Daily 0 0.8 1.4 1.5 0.3 0 0 0 Score Set 3 Cumulative Score per Bird = 4.0

[0063] TABLE 8 Clinical Signs For 6-Week Challenge # of days post-challenge with virulent TRTV strain in eye drops at a dose of 10^(3.8) TCID₅₀ TRTV in 0.2 ml per bird 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 bird # for Set 1 (vaccinated with 10^(3.2) TCID₅₀) 108 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 114 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 119 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 131 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 134 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Daily 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 Score Mean Daily 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 Score Set 1 Cumulative Score per Bird = 0.4 bird # for Set 2 (vaccinated with 10^(4.2) TCID₅₀) 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Daily 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 Score Mean Daily 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 Score Set 2 Cumulative Score per Bird = 0.4 bird # for Set 3 (not vaccinated) 302 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 306 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 307 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 312 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 315 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 318 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 319 0 0 1 2 2 2 0 0 329 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 330 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 332 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Total Daily 0 3 7 10 8 2 0 0 Score Mean Daily 0 0.3 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.2 0 0 Score Set 3 Cumulative Score per Bird = 3.0

[0064] TABLE 9 Chi-Squared Analysis χ² - Analysis of Clinical Scores: Comparison of 2 Vaccinated Groups (Sets 1 and 2) with 1 Negative Control Group (Set 3) Deg. of Group χ² Freedom Probability Set 1 (3-week challenge) 7.27 3  0.1 > P > 0.05 Set 2 (3-week challenge) 10.133 3 0.02 > P > 0.05 Set 1 (6-week challenge) 12.09 3 P < 0.01 Set 2 (6-week challenge) 12.09 3 P < 0.01

[0065] In addition to monitoring the birds of Sets 1, 2, and 3 for clinical signs of TRT, the birds were also subjected to serological analysis wherein antibodies to TRTV in individual blood samples were determined by ELISA techniques using an A type antigen and expressed as ²log titers. Antibody titers of ²log titer >6.0 were taken to be positive. The results were statistically analyzed using a Student's t-test for unpaired data. Tables 10 and 11 present the serological results obtained with the challenged birds of Sets 1, 2, and 3 for, respectively, the 3-week challenge and the 6-week challenge. In Tables 10 and 11, “PC” refers to post-challenge; “GM” refers to geometric mean; and “SD” refers to standard deviation. In brief, all the groups (i.e., Sets 1, 2, and 3) showed a significant rise in antibody titers at 7 post-challenge days and a additional rise in antibody titers at 14 days PC. TABLE 10 TRTV Antibody Titers (3-Week Challenge) ²log antibody titers after challenge with virulent TRTV in eye drops at a dose of 10^(3.5) TCID₅₀ in 0.1 ml per bird bird # prior to challenge 7 days PC 14 days PC for Set 1 (vaccinated with 10^(3.2) TCID₅₀) 104 4.4 9.9 106 3.6 9 9.9 107 6.2 7 9.5 111 6.6 10.4 11.2 113 3.4 9.4 117 3.5 8.8 118 3.6 6.4 9.5 124 3.2 6.8 9.7 127 10.1 10.9 139 3.4 10.2 GM 4.8 7.92 9.9 SD 2.22 1.71 0.72 for Set 2 (vaccinated with 10^(4.2) TCID₅₀) 3 4.4 9 9.9 6 9.7 10.6 11 4.6 10.3 10.9 12 4.3 7.5 10 17 8.4 10.6 11.1 20 9.1 21 4.5 10 29 4.4 10 36 3.6 9.6 10 37 4.8 10.1 GM 5.78 9.4 10.29 SD 2.31 1.23 0.45 for Set 3 (not vaccinated) 301 3.3 9.2 311 3.4 9.1 9.9 313 3 9 9.7 314 3.7 9.9 10.3 316 3.7 10.2 321 4.2 9.5 9.8 322 3.9 7.7 10 327 3.4 10 331 3.5 10.5 334 3.5 10.3 GM 3.56 9.04 9.99 SD 0.28 0.83 0.37

[0066] TABLE 11 TRTV Antibody Titers (6-Week Challenge) ²log antibody titers after challenge with virulent TRTV in eye drops at a dose of 10^(3.8) TCID₅₀ in 0.2 ml per bird bird # prior to challenge 7 days PC 14 days PC for Set 1 (vaccinated with 10^(3.2) TCID₅₀) 108 4 10.2 110 5.9 10.1 114 4.7 9.8 115 4 6 9.9 119 4.1 6.5 10.7 120 4 10.4 130 3.9 9.8 131 3.5 7 9.9 134 3.9 6.4 9.6 135 4 5.5 10 GM 4.2 6.28 10.04 SD 0.67 0.56 0.32 for Set 2 (vaccinated with 10^(4.2) TCID₅₀) 2 5.8 10 4 7.1 9.3 8 6.4 10.3 10.4 13 5.2 10.2 18 8.6 10.2 11.2 25 10.4 10.7 10.9 27 10.2 10.5 11.4 32 10.3 38 10.8 10.9 11.1 39 6.8 9.5 GM 8.16 10.52 10.47 SD 2.14 0.29 0.72 for Set 3 (not vaccinated) 302 3.8 7.1 10.4 306 4.4 8.1 10.1 307 4.1 10.1 312 3.8 6.3 9.9 315 4.1 6 9.9 318 3.9 10 319 4.2 9.9 329 3.8 9.9 330 4.3 7.7 9.7 332 3.4 9.9 GM 3.98 7.04 9.98 SD 0.30 0.89 0.19

[0067] A similar serological analysis was also performed with respect to all three groups (i.e., Sets 1, 2, and 3) which were not challenged with a virulent strain of TRTV. Mean antibody titers from the control birds (Set 3) and from the 2 groups of vaccinated birds (Sets 1 and 2) from one-day old to 8½-weeks old were determined. As expected, the antibody titers for the control birds remained low throughout this study. The titers of the control birds were statistically compared to those of the vaccinated birds of the same age. Table 12 presents the post in ovo determined mean antibody titers. Individual results were available (data not shown) to support the experimental results presented in Table 12. In Table 12, “n” refers to the number of birds and “SD” refers to the Standard Deviation. TABLE 12 Post In Ovo Mean Antibody Titers Mean Antibody Age n SD Titer for Set 1 (vaccinated with 10_(3.2) TCID₅₀) 1-Day Old 10 0.87 4.95 1 Week 5 0.51 4.06 2 Weeks 5 1.54 3.88 3 Weeks 20 1.71 4.06 4 Weeks 5 0.22 4.28 5 Weeks 10 0.67 4.55 6 Weeks 10 0.67 4.2 8½ Weeks 10 2.04 5.83 for Set 2 (vaccinated with 10^(4.2) TCID₅₀) 1-Day Old 11 0.56 4.3 1 Week 5 0.45 4.26 2 Weeks 5 2.82 4.76 3 Weeks 20 2.42 5.98 4 Weeks 5 2.98 7.16 5 Weeks 10 2.38 7.03 6 Weeks 10 2.12 8.14 8½ Weeks 9 2.56 8.13 for Set 3 (not vaccinated) 1-Day Old 10 0.73 3.88 1 Week 5 0.96 4.72 2 Weeks 5 0.26 3.8 3 Weeks 18 0.27 3.49 4 Weeks 5 0.17 4.4 5 Weeks 11 0.55 3.61 6 Weeks 11 0.35 3.92 8½ Weeks 9 0.86 3.98

[0068] An analysis of the results of Example 3, including the experimentally-obtained measurements, results, and corresponding statistical analysis, indicates that the lower dose of vaccine (10^(3.2) TCID₅₀ TRTV delivered in ovo to susceptible 18-day-old fertile SPF chicken eggs) was efficacious in that it conferred significant protection against challenge with a virulent strain of TRTV at 6 weeks of age. At 3 weeks of age, protection was also observed; however, in light of the number of birds, the experimentally-observed differences in the protection afforded fell just beneath the level of significance. At the increased vaccination dose of 10^(4.2) TCID₅₀ TRTV per egg (an increase on the order of approximately ¹log10), for both the 3-week and the 6-week challenges, significant protection against exposure to a virulent strain of TRTV was observed.

[0069] In ovo administration of the vaccine derived from the Poulvac® TRT was clearly associated with the production of TRTV-specific antibodies in the vaccinated/inoculated birds. This association appeared to be dose-dependent. The higher dose of the in ovo vaccine caused an increase in mean antibody titer at three weeks of age to levels significantly higher than those of the negative control birds and to levels closely below the cutoff value of 6.0. The circulating antibody response to the in ovo vaccination with the higher dose of 10^(4.2) TCID₅₀ per egg appeared to increase with the passage of time; a maximum was obtained at six weeks of age; and, thereafter, the titers remained steady until 8½ weeks of age.

[0070] In contrast to the above discussed results for the high vaccination dose, the birds given the lower dose of 10^(3.2) TCID₅₀ per egg appeared to experience a delayed antibody response to vaccination. Titers only started increasing at 8½ weeks of age—when they reached levels significantly higher than those of the control birds. At this time (i.e., 8½ weeks) the titers for the low vaccine birds (Set 1) were at similar levels to those of the high vaccine birds (Set 2) at an age of 3 weeks. It appeared likely that, with the passage of yet additional time beyond 8½ weeks, the antibody titers would have increased to levels above 6.0.

[0071] A relationship appeared between antibody titers and reduction in clinical signs of TRT. In each grouping of birds where the antibody titers were significantly higher than those of the control birds but nonetheless below the positive cutoff value of 6.0; —the observed reduction in clinical signs of TRT was statistically significant.

[0072] In ovo vaccination to susceptible day-18-old fertile SPF chicken eggs with doses in the approximate range of from at least 10^(3.2) TCID₅₀ per egg to at least 10^(4.2) TCID₅₀ per egg, and, in particular, with doses of approximately 10^(4.2) TCID₅₀ per egg appeared both safe and efficacious against clinical disease normally expected from challenge with a virulent strain of TRTV.

Example 4 Efficacy Study for in ovo Commercial Chicken Vaccines

[0073] The aim of this study was to ascertain whether in ovo vaccination of 18-day-old incubated fertile chicken eggs from a parent flock of commercial broilers is efficacious in preventing TRT and/or SHS disease after virulent challenge at 4 or 6 weeks of age. As established below, in ovo vaccination of susceptible 18-day-old fertile eggs from TRTV-antibody positive parents with 10^(3.2) TCID₅₀ per egg with a vaccine derived from Poulvac® TRT is efficacious against clinical rhinotracheitis disease.

[0074] Fertile eggs for hatching were obtained from a flock of 37-week-old commercial broiler parents which had been previously vaccinated with live TRT vaccine at 10 weeks of age and with killed TRT vaccine at 18 weeks of age. These eggs were obtained from the Mossbank breeder flock, Marshall Agriculture, Whitburn, Scotland.

[0075] A commercially-available TRT vaccine, Poulvac® TRT, available from Fort Dodge Animal Health, Fort Dodge, Iowa or Weesp, The Netherlands was used to prepare the in ovo vaccines of the present invention. Three vials of this commercial vaccine containing a titer of 107.5 TCID₅₀ were each resuspended in 5 ml of sterile water, and the contents well mixed and pooled. The vaccine was further diluted in sterile phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) to give a resulting suspension of 10^(3.2) TCID₅₀ of vaccine per 0.1 ml.

[0076] The challenge virus was prepared as follows. TRTV from the UK strain BUT 8544 (see page 12) was passaged 23 times in trachea organ culture (hereinafter, “TOC”), once in poults, reisolated, and passaged once more in TOC. The titer of this challenge virus was 10^(4.5) TCID₅₀ per ml.

[0077] After 18 days of incubation, 57 fertile eggs were inoculated in ovo with 0.1 ml of the reconstituted TRT vaccine containing 10^(3.2) TCID₅₀ as described above. The eggs were immediately placed into an incubator (without turning) and left to hatch in the isolation pen in which they were housed. After hatching, 40 birds were removed from the incubator and placed on the floor on shavings.

[0078] A number (110) of fertile eggs were not vaccinated/inoculated and were left to hatch separately. A day after hatching, forty birds were housed in a second isolation pen as the negative control birds. Challenged control birds were called positive control birds.

[0079] Hatching was recorded on days 20, 21, 22, and 23 (inoculation day—zero). After hatch, excess birds were humanely killed or used for the collection of blood. The hatchability percentages for the non-vaccinated eggs and the vaccinated eggs were, respectively, 89% and 91% which establishes that, with respect to hatchability, vaccination with a titer of 10^(3.2) TCID₅₀ was safe.

[0080] At 4 weeks of age, ten birds from the vaccinated group and ten birds from the negative controls were wing-tagged and moved into a third isolation pen. Each bird was then administered with the previously described challenge virus via an eye drop containing a dose of 10^(3.5) TCID₅₀ (virulent) TRTV in 0.1 ml. At 6 weeks of age, an additional 14 birds was likewise challenged with a virulent strain of TRTV. However, because of the increased age of these birds, the challenge dose was increased to 103.8 TCID₅₀ (virulent) TRTV in 0.2 ml, on a per bird basis.

[0081] The challenged birds were experimentally monitored for 14 days, after which they were bled and killed. The observed signs were recorded using Table 13 Revised Clinical Scoring System. The Table 13 system was similar to but not identical with the Table 2 system previously described in Example 1 above. TABLE 13 Revised Clinical Scoring System Score experimentally-observed symptoms 0 no signs 1 clear nasal exudate 1 frothy eyes but no nasal exudate (F) 2 turbid nasal exudate 3 swollen infraorbital sinuses or frothy eyes and 1 or 2

[0082] The total daily score of a group of birds was calculated by summarizing the individual scores of each bird on that day. The cumulative score is the sum of the mean daily scores. The χ² test was used to analyze the data. The total clinical signs seen in the Set 1 vaccinated group was compared to those seen in the Set 2 positive controls on the same days for both the 4-week and 6-week challenges. This monitoring established the following results.

[0083] With respect to the 4-week challenge with the virulent TRTV strain at a titer of 10^(3.5) TCID₅₀, clinical signs were only observed on days 6 and 7, —the maximum signs were seen on day 6 in both groups (i.e., Sets 1 and 2).

[0084] In the vaccinated group (Set 1), only 30% of the birds exhibited clinical signs after challenge and the cumulative mean score per bird was 0.6. In Set 1, seven out of ten birds remained completely clear of clinical signs. The total clinical signs seen in the vaccinated birds were statistically compared to those of the positive control birds. Although the vaccinated birds exhibited less severe clinical signs than those of the positive control birds, these results were not statistically significant (0.2<P<0.3).

[0085] With respect to the 6-week challenge with the virulent TRTV strain at a titer of 103.8 TCID₅₀, clinical signs were observed for longer periods of time in the positive control birds than after the 4-week challenge with the lower dose. However, in the vaccinated birds, clinical signs were observed for only one day. Of the positive control birds, 57% showed clinical signs and the cumulative score per bird was 1.35. Of the 14 birds in this group, 6 remained completely clear of clinical signs. One bird showed severe clinical signs on days 5 and 6 of the observation period and subsequently died nine days after challenge. Post-mortem examination of this bird revealed a dilated right ventricle, congested cardiac veins, lung congestion, excess mucous in the trachea, and a fibrinous exudate on the liver. The probable cause of death was right heart failure and possible hepatitis. By contrast, only 14% of the vaccinated group of birds exhibited clinical signs after challenge and the cumulative score per bird was 0.14. Of the 14 birds in this group, 12 remained completely clear of clinical signs. The total clinical signs in the vaccinated group (Set 1) was statistically compared using a χ² analysis to those seen in the positive control birds (Set 2). This analysis established that the clinical signs seen in the vaccinated group were significantly less severe than those seen in the positive control birds (0.02<P<0.05).

[0086] Tables 14, 15, and 16 present these results for, respectively, the 4-week challenge, the 6-week challenge, and the χ² statistical analysis as discussed above. TABLE 14 Clinical Signs For 4-Week Challenge # of days post-challenge with virulent TRTV strain in eye drops at a dose of 10^(3.5) TRTV TCID₅₀ in 0.1 ml per bird 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 bird # for Set 1 (vaccinated with 10^(3.2) TCID₅₀) 41 0 0 0 0 F 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 0 0 0 2 F 0 0 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Daily 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 Score Mean Daily 0 0 0 0.4 0.2 0 0 0 Score Set 1 Cumulative Score per Bird = 0.6 bird # for Set 2 (nonvaccinated) 391 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 392 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 393 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 394 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 395 0 0 0 3 F 0 0 0 396 0 0 0 0 F 0 0 0 397 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 398 0 0 0 1 F 0 0 0 399 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Daily 0 0 0 10 3 0 0 0 Score Mean Daily 0 0 0 1 0.3 0 0 0 Score Set 2 Cumulative Score per Bird = 1.3

[0087] TABLE 15 Clinical Signs For 6-Week Challenge # of days post-challenge with virulent TRTV strain in eye drops at a dose of 103.8 TRTV TCID₅₀ in 0.2 ml per bird 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 bird # for Set 1 (vaccinated with 10^(3.2) TCID ₅₀) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 0 0 F 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 0 0 0 F 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Daily 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Score Mean Daily 0 0 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 Score Set 1 Cumulative Score per Bird = 0.14 bird # for Set 2 (nonvaccinated) 381 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 383 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 387 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 388 0 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 389 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 390 0 0 F 0 0 0 0 0 463 0 0 2 F 0 1 0 0 464 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 465 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 469 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 474 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 476 0 0 3 3 0 0 dead 0 477 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 478 0 0 2 F 0 0 0 0 Total Daily 0 1 8 7 0 3 0 0 Score Mean Daily 0 0.07 0.57 0.5 0 0.21 0 0 Score Set 2 Cumulative Score per Bird = 1.35

[0088] TABLE 16 Chi-Squared Analysis Of Clinical Score Data χ² - Analysis of Clinical Scores: Comparison of 1 Vaccinated Group (Set 1) with 1 Positive Control Group (Set 2) Deg. of Group χ² Freedom Probability Set 1 (4-week challenge) 3.95 3 0.2 < P < 0.3 Set 1 (6-week challenge) 8.43 3 0.02 < P < 0.05

[0089] In addition to monitoring the birds of Sets 1 and 2 for clinical signs of TRT, the birds were also subjected to serological analysis wherein antibodies to TRTV in individual blood samples were determined by ELISA techniques developed at Leahurst, Liverpool, (U.K.) using an A type antigen and expressed as ²log titers. Antibody titers of ²log titer >6.0 were taken to be positive. The results were statistically analyzed using a Student's t-test for unpaired data. Tables 17 and 18 present the serological results obtained with the challenged birds of Sets 1 and 2 for, respectively, the 4-week challenge and the 6-week challenge. In Tables 17 and 18, “PC” refers to post-challenge. TABLE 17 TRTV Antibody Titers (4-Week Challenge) ²log antibody titers after challenge with virulent TRTV in eye drops at a dose of 10^(3.5) TCID₅₀ in 0.1 ml per bird bird # prior to challenge 14 days PC for Set 1 (vaccinated with 10^(3.2) TCID₅₀) 41 3.0 9.4 42 3.0 9.2 43 3.0 10.1 44 3.0 9.5 45 6.9 10.8 46 5.4 11.2 47 3.0 10.2 48 3.0 10.6 49 8.2 9.9 50 9.2 11.0 Mean 4.77 10.19 Standard Deviation 2.48 0.70 for Set 2 (nonvaccinated) 391 3.3 9.5 392 3.5 10.3 393 3.0 9.7 394 3.1 9.1 395 3.6 8.9 396 3.6 9.7 397 3.1 9.8 398 3.4 9.3 399 3.0 9.7 400 3.4 9.9 Mean 3.3 9.6 Standard Deviation 0.24 0.41

[0090] TABLE 18 TRTV Antibody Titers (6-Week Challenge) ²log antibody titers after challenge with virulent TRTV in eye drops at a dose of 10^(3.8) TCID₅₀ in 0.2 ml per bird bird # prior to challenge 14 days PC for Set 1 (vaccinated with 10^(3.2) TCID₅₀) 1 6.3 11.6 2 4.3 10.4 3 4.2 10.1 52 3.6 10.6 53 4.1 10.6 54 3.7 10.7 55 4.8 9.7 56 3.6 9.9 57 8.1 10.1 59 3.4 10.2 60 3.6 9.8 62 9.3 65 5.3 10.0 69 4.9 10.1 Mean 4.61 10.22 Standard Deviation 1.34 0.55 for Set 2 (nonvaccinated) 381 4.2 9.8 383 5.2 9.2 387 3.0 9.9 388 3.4 9.6 389 3.8 9.0 390 5.4 8.8 463 4.0 10.0 464 3.0 9.7 465 3.7 8.7 469 3.0 9.6 474 3.9 9.9 476 4.7 477 4.8 9.9 478 5.0 9.6 Mean 4.08 9.52 Standard Deviation 0.83 0.44

[0091] A similar serological analysis was also performed with respect to those birds which were not challenged with a virulent strain of TRTV, using ten serum samples taken from birds from each of 5 different air spaces of the Mossbank parent breeder flocks (Marshalls Agriculture) at 25 and 41 weeks of age. Table 19 presents the mean antibody titers of these birds from the parent breeder flock. TABLE 19 Mean Antibody Titers Of Parent Breeder Flock 25 weeks old (n = 10) 41 weeks old (n = 10) house Mean SD Mean SD 4A 7.60 2.57 7.39 1.72 5A 7.51 0.81 8.27 0.87 3B 7.44 2.55 7.29 1.50 4B 8.16 0.67 6.64 1.46 5B 7.34 1.81 7.17 0.98

[0092] For both the unchallenged vaccinated and the unchallenged negative control birds, blood was collected at ages of 1-day-old and 4, 6, and 8 weeks of age. Table 20 presents this mean antibody titers for the unchallenged birds. TABLE 20 Mean Antibody Titers For Unchallenged Birds nonvaccinated negative control birds vaccinated birds age mean SD n mean SD n 1-day 7.23 1.32 10 6.46 0.99 10 4 weeks 3.52 0.54 38 4.38 1.86 39 6 weeks 3.93 0.72 28 4.72 1.62 27 8 weeks 3.54 0.75 14 5.09 1.68 14

[0093] For both the challenged vaccinated and the challenged positive control birds, blood was collected 14 days post-challenge for each of the 4-week and the 6-week challenged/groups. Table 21 presents this mean antibody titers for the challenged birds in these 2 groups. TABLE 21 Titers For Challenged Birds At 14 Days PC 4-week challenge 6-week challenge SD SD group mean (P) n mean (P) n positive 9.6 0.41 10 9.52 0.44 13 control (-) (-) birds vaccinated 10.19 0.70 10 10.22 0.55 14 birds (0.031) (0.001)

[0094] Individual results were available to support the data presented above in Tables 14-21. Based on the above serological analysis, the following conclusions were made. For both the vaccinated birds and the negative control birds, at an age of 1 day, these birds possessed maternal antibodies (MA) to TRTV. By 4 weeks of age, antibody levels in the negative control birds had dropped to the negative range and remained low throughout the remainder of the experiment. Following in ovo administration with a titer of 10^(3.2) TCID₅₀ of a vaccine derived from Poulvac® TRT, mean antibody titers remained in the negative range (i.e., below the positive cutoff value of 6.0) but increased with age. At 4, 6, and 8 weeks of age, the vaccinated birds possessed mean antibody titer levels which were statistically significantly higher than those of the negative control birds. From 4 weeks of age, 20% to 22% of the vaccinated birds had positive titers. With respect to the challenged birds, all birds showed seroconversion at 14 days post-challenge. For both the 4-week and the 6-week challenge studies, the mean titers of the vaccinated group were higher than those of the positive control birds and this difference was statistically significant (P <0.05).

[0095] An analysis of the entirety of Example 4, including the experimentally-obtained measurements, results, and corresponding statistical analysis indicates that in ovo vaccination of maternal-antibody-positive (MA+) commercial broiler eggs at 18 days incubation with a vaccine derived from Poulvac® TRT at a dosage titer of 10^(3.2) TCID₅₀ per egg did not adversely effect hatchability and provided a reliable, efficient, and efficacious method of vaccine administration. This vaccination also conferred significant protection against challenge with a virulent strain of TRTV at 6 weeks of age—when the clinical signs seen were significantly reduced. There was a degree of protection at 4-weeks of age—however, even in the nonvaccinated positive control birds the clinical signs seen at this time were not very severe. Accordingly, although present, the protection afforded against a challenge at 4-weeks was not statistically significant.

[0096] The data presented in this Example 4, in combination with that of Examples 1-3 above, established that chickens are far less susceptible to TRT vaccines. Positive mean antibody titers (above the positive cutoff value of 6.0) were not observed after in ovo vaccination. However, the levels in the vaccinated group were significantly higher than those seen in the negative controls. Approximately one-fifth of the vaccinated birds had positive titers after 4 weeks of age. Therefore, at the time of challenge, overall seroconversion to ELISA levels above 6.0 may not be a good indicator of the protection actually afforded by the in ovo vaccination. Local immunity may play a role in the interaction between the protection induced and the experimentally-determined titers.

[0097] Prior to the analysis of Experiments 1-4 above, it had been postulated that the presence of maternal antibodies would adversely effect the effectiveness of vaccines. Example 4 nonetheless and surprisingly establishes that in ovo administration of a TRT vaccine at a titer of 10^(3.2) TCID₅₀ per egg was efficacious in reducing clinical TRT disease in chickens that are MA+. Example 4 strengthens and extends the conclusions reached in Example 3 above; namely, that SPF (MA−) chickens which were vaccinated in ovo likewise experienced a reduction of clinical disease.

Example 5 Study of TRT Vaccine in Combination with Other Poultry Vaccines

[0098] The following abbreviations are utilized in this study: AHS Animal Health Service, Deventer, The Netherlands BC Biochek, Gouda, The Netherlands CVL Central Veterinary Laboratory, Weybridge, UK EID50 50% egg infective dose ELISA enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay FAT fluorescent antibody test HI haemagglutination inhibition IB infectious bronchitis IBD infectious bursal disease i.m. intramuscular(ly) MD Marek's disease ND Newcastle disease P probability TCID50 50% tissue culture infective dose TRT turkey rhinotracheitis

[0099] The following vaccine materials were utilized for this study:

[0100] Poulvac® TRT, batches TR02100 and TR02200, containing 104.1 and 104.1 TCID50 TRT virus per dose, respectively.

[0101] Poulvac® Ovoline ND, batch BB010, containing 103.9 EID50 ND virus per vial (5000 doses per vial).

[0102] Bursamune IN OVO, batch 61640, containing 5000 doses per vial.

[0103] Poulvac® Marek HVT lyo, batch 350129, containing MD virus, strain FC126 (1000 doses per vial).

[0104] Poulvac® NDW, batches BL03200 and BL04302.

[0105] Poulvac® IB Primer, batch CX02301, containing 105.0 EID50 IB virus, serotypes M41 and D207 (D274 Clone), per dose (1000 doses per vial).

[0106] Poulvac® Bursa Plus, batch 62481, containing 103.2 EID50 IBD virus, strain V877, per vial (2000 doses per vial).

[0107] All vaccines, except for Bursamune IN OVO, were supplied by Fort Dodge Animal Health Benelux, Weesp, The Netherlands. Bursamune IN OVO was obtained from Fort Dodge Animal Health, Australia.

[0108] Vaccine batches were stored at 0-8° C., protected from light, until the day of use and were used according to the manufacturer's specifications. After reconstitution, the vaccines were used within two hours. The following vaccine dilutions were prepared.

[0109] Vaccine dilution for vaccination in-ovo group 1 Poulvac® TRT, batch TR02100, Poulvac® Ovoline ND and Bursamune IN OVO were reconstituted and further diluted in Poulvac® Marek diluent, batch C8109. The final dilution contained one commercial dose of each vaccine in 0.05 ml.

[0110] Vaccine dilution for intramuscular (i.m.) vaccination groups 1 and 2 against MD

[0111] Poulvac® Marek HVT lyo was reconstituted and further diluted in Poulvac® Marek diluent, batch C8109. The dilution contained one commercial dose per 0.5 ml.

[0112] Vaccine dilution for coarse spray vaccination group 1 Poulvac® IB Primer was reconstituted and further diluted in 2.2 liters of demineralized water. The dilution contained one commercial dose per 0.5 ml.

[0113] Vaccine dilution for coarse spray vaccination group 2 Poulvac® NDW, batch BL04302, Poulvac® IB Primer, and Poulvac® TRT, batch TR02200, were reconstituted and further diluted in 3 liters of demineralized water. The final dilution contained one commercial dose per 0.5 ml.

[0114] Vaccine dilution for vaccination group 2 against IBD in drinking water Three vials Poulvac® Bursa Plus were reconstituted and further diluted in tap water.

[0115] Vaccine dilution for vaccination groups 1 and 2 against ND by Atomist spray Poulvac® NDW, batch BL03200 was reconstituted and further diluted in demineralized water until the final dilution contained one commercial dose per 0.5 ml.

[0116] 14895 commercial eggs of Cobb breed for broiler production, obtained from Pronk, Meppel, The Netherlands, were placed in one incubator located in MUK-5/6 at the test farm of Fort Dodge AHH, Muiden, The Netherlands. All eggs were candled after 17 days of incubation. Non-fertilised eggs or eggs with dead embryos were removed.

[0117] 6001 Eggs assigned to group 1 were inoculated with 0.05 ml of a dilution containing 1 dose of Poulvac® TRT, Poulvac® Ovoline ND and Bursamune IN OVO per egg after 18 days incubation using an Embrex Inovoject egg injection machine according to the manufacturer's instructions. 6028 Eggs assigned to group 2 were left non-inoculated.

[0118] Inoculated (group 1) and non-inoculated (group 2) eggs were further incubated (without turning) until hatching in the incubators 1 and 4, respectively, located at the test farm of Fort Dodge AHH, Muiden, The Netherlands. After hatching, 4452 (inoculated, group 1) and 5248 (non-inoculated, group 2) chicks were included in the study, respectively. The chicks were group-housed on wood shavings in animal facilities located in the same shed at the test farm of Fort Dodge AHH, Muiden, The Netherlands. Chicks of group 1 were housed in MUL-L and chicks of group 2 in MUL-R. All chicks were fed ad libitum with commercial broiler pellet and had free access to drinking water provided in bell drinkers.

[0119] The vaccination schedule is shown in Table 22. At one day of age, chicks of group 1 were vaccinated with Poulvac® IB Primer. One commercial dose was administered by coarse spray using a garden sprayer (Gardena) in 0.5 ml per chick. At one day of age, chicks of group 2 were vaccinated with Poulvac® TRT, Poulvac® NDW and Poulvac® IB Primer. One commercial dose of each vaccine was administered by coarse spray in one volume of 0.5 ml per chick, as in group 1. Before coarse spray vaccination, the chicks were placed in chicken boxes and were left therein until 3 hours post-vaccination.

[0120] All chicks were vaccinated with Poulvac® Marek HVT lyo, one commercial dose per chick, at one day of age. The vaccine was i.m. applied in the thigh, using a Pullet Injection Gun (Veterinary Supplies, Mijdrecht, The Netherlands) with a pre-set volume of 0.5 ml.

[0121] Chicks of group 2 were vaccinated with Poulvac® Bursa Plus, one commercial dose per chick in the drinking water, at 2 weeks of age. The vaccine was distributed in a quantity of water that was consumed within 2 hours. The chicks were deprived of drinking water during 2 hours before the vaccine was administered.

[0122] All chicks were vaccinated with Poulvac® NDW at 4 weeks of age. One commercial dose in 0.5 ml per chick was applied by atomiser. TABLE 22 Vaccination schedule. Age at Group vaccination vaccine application method 1 eggs 18 days Poulvac TRT) injection machine of incubation Poulvac Ovoline ND) Bursamune IN OVO) 1 Chicks 1 day Poulvac IB Primer) coarse spray in of age Poulvac Marek HVT lyo chicken box i.m. 2 Chicks 1 day Poulvac TRT) coarse spray in of age Poulvac NDW) chicken box i.m. Poulvac IB Primer) Poulvac Marek HVT lyo 2 Chicks 2 Poulvac Bursa Plus drinking water weeks of age 1 and Chicks 4 Poulvac NDW atomiser 2 weeks of age

[0123] Blood samples were taken from 30 chicks of each group after decapitation at one day of age. Samples of 10 chicks of each group were used for serological tests at AHS. Samples of 10 other chicks of each group were used for serological tests at the Central Veterinary Laboratory, Weybridge, UK (CVL). The remaining 10 samples were used for serological tests at BC. Blood samples were collected from the wing vein up to a maximum number of 24 chicks per group at 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 weeks of age.

[0124] Antibody titres to ND, IB M41 and IB D274 antigens were determined using HI tests. The detection limit of the HI tests corresponds with 2log HI titre =1.0 for ND antigen and with 2log HI titre=3.0 for IB antigens. Geometric mean HI titres were calculated. Antibody titres to TRT and IBD virus were measured using an ELISA method (IDEXX) according to the manufacturer's instructions and mean titres were calculated. These tests were done at AHS.

[0125] Antibody titrations to ND, IB, TRT and IBD virus using ELISA methods were done by BC. ELISA antibody titres of 1159 and 834 or above to ND and IB virus, respectively, are regarded positive. Antibody titres to ND (regarded positive at 396 or above) and IB virus were also determined using the IDEXX test kits. Mean titres were calculated using the BC99 software.

[0126] The results obtained at AHS and CVL were analyzed statistically. The two groups were compared with respect to antibody titres by means of Student's 2-sided t test. ELISA antibody titres to IBD, TRT and MD were log transformed log[x+1]) before analysis. The MD measurements >1600 and neg. were replaced by 1600 and 25 in the calculations, respectively. A probability of P≦0.05 was considered as a statistically significant difference.

[0127] Results: Mean antibody titres to ND, IB, IBD and TRT antigens, determined by AHS and BC, are shown in Tables 23 and 24. TABLE 23 Mean antibody titres to ND, IB M41, IB D274, IBD and TRT, determined by AHS. mean 2log HI antibody titre mean ELISA IB antibody titre age Group ND IB M41 D274 IBD TRT one 1 5.4 8.0 7.9 2377 4896  day 2 (n = 10) (n = 10) (n = 10) (n = 10) (n = 10) 5.8 8.1 7.9 3084 1628  (n = 10) (n = 10) (n = 10) (n = 10) (n = 10)* 2 weeks,vaccination with Poulvac Bursa Plus (group 2) 1 2.3 6.2 6.5  94 509 (n = 24) (n = 24) 2 (n = 24) (n = 24) (n = 24)  109 371 2.2 5.8 6.3 (n = 24) (n = 24)* (n = 24) (n = 24) (n = 24) 3 weeks 1 2.5 5.4 5.6  51 203 (n = 24) (n = 24) 2 (n = 24) (n = 24) (n = 24)  45  90 1.2 5.4 5.4 (n = 24) (n = 24)* (n = 23)* (n = 20) (n = 23) 4 weeks, vaccination with Poulvac NDW (groups 1 and 2) 1 1.8 3.8 4.1  951  76 (n = 23) 2 (n = 24) (n = 23) (n = 24) (n = 24) 7 1.3 3.7 4.0 1196 (n = 24)* (n = 24) (n = 24) (n = 24) (n = 24) 5 weeks 1 3.6 4.6 4.9 1392 426 (n = 24) 2 (n = 24) (n = 21) (n = 21) (n = 24)  41 1.8 4.0 4.2 1210 (n = 24)* (n = 24)* (n = 22) (n = 22) (n = 24) 6 weeks 1 2.3 4.3 4.6 1907 215 (n = 24) 2 (n = 24) (n = 24) (n = 24) (n = 24)  72 3.3 3.7 3.8 1857 (n = 24) (n = 24)* (n = 24)* (n = 24)* (n = 24)

[0128] TABLE 24 Mean antibody titres to ND, IB, IBD and TRT, determined by BC. mean ELISA antibody titre Age Group ND IB IBD TRT one 1 7309 (n = 10) 6316 (n = 10) 4643 11144 (n = 10) (n = 10) day 2 7087 (n = 10) 6148 (n = 10) 4601  2594 (n = 10) (n = 10) 2 weeks, vaccination with Poulvac Bursa Plus (group 2) 1 1279 (n = 24)  497 (n = 24)  399  804 (n = 24) (n = 24) 2 1088 (n = 24)  649 (n = 24) 400 (n = 24)  610 (n = 24) 3 weeks 1 1934 (n = 24)  687 (n = 24)  440  316 (n = 24) (n = 24) 2  763 (n = 24)  718 (n = 24)  854  258 (n = 24) (n = 24) 4 weeks, vaccination with Poulvac NDW (groups 1 and 2) 1  924 (n = 24) 1100 (n = 24) 5448  298 (n = 24) (n = 24) 2  530 (n = 24)  680 (n = 24) 6291  451 (n = 24) (n = 24) 5 weeks 1 2918 (n = 24) 1041 (n = 24) 6142  483 (n = 24) (n = 24) 2 1604 (n = 24)  752 (n = 24) 5948  279 (n = 24) (n = 24) 6 weeks 1 3074 (n = 24) 1435 (n = 24) 6322  456 (n = 24) (n = 24) 2 2536 (n = 24) 2662 (n = 24) 6801  681 (n = 24) (n = 24)

[0129] Mean FAT titres to MD virus, representing the mean serum dilution demonstrating specific fluorescence, are shown in Table 25. Statistically significant higher FAT titres were observed in group 2 at 2, 3, and 4 weeks of age, showing a higher immunological response at younger age of the birds. TABLE 25 Mean FAT titres to MD virus. mean FAT titre to MD Age group no. samples virus one day 1 10 880 2 10 940 2 weeks 1 24  66 2 24  175* 3 weeks 1 24 172 2 24  612* 4 weeks 1 24 369 2 24  823* 5 weeks 1 24 950 2 24 877 6 weeks 1 24 1129  2 24 1267 

Example 5 Discussion

[0130] Chicks in both groups had MA against ND, IB, IBD, TRT and MD virus. A seroresponse to ND and IB was observed after vaccination at one day old. Development of titres to these antigens was within normal ranges in both groups. The second vaccination with Poulvac® NDW induced a seroresponse in both groups. Both groups developed antibody titres to IBD, TRT and MD virus.

[0131] In a number of cases, certain differences in antibody titres between groups was observed. Antibody titres to ND were higher in group 1 (chicks hatched from inoculated eggs) in all cases except at 6 weeks of age. Antibody titres to TRT were also higher in group 1 in all cases and these differences were statistically significant except for the difference at 6 weeks of age. The seroresponse to MD was somewhat slower in group 1 but reached the same level as in group 2 at 5 weeks of age. No clear differences between groups in mean antibody titres to IB and IBD antigens were observed. In most instances, the results of the titrations done at BC followed the same pattern as those obtained at AHS, with higher values for the ELISA titres to IBD and TRT. A seroresponse to IBD was shown by the BC test at 3 weeks of age, which is one week before it was shown in the IDEXX test. The BC ELISA test seems more sensitive to measure antibody titres to ND than the HI method. The BC ELISA test showed a more pronounced response to IB virus than the HI method from 3 weeks of age onwards.

[0132] In-ovo vaccination of commercial eggs for broiler production with one commercial dose of Poulvac® TRT, Poulvac® Ovoline ND and Bursamune IN OVO after 18 days of incubation followed by vaccination with Poulvac IB Primer and Poulvac® HVT at one day of age is compatible regarding efficacy with vaccination of the hatched chicks with commercial dosages of Poulvac TRT, Poulvac® NDW, Poulvac® IB Primer and Poulvac® Marek HVT lyo on the first day of life and with vaccination with Poulvac® Bursa Plus at 2 weeks of age.

[0133] The BC ELISA test kits seems favorable for measuring antibody titre levels to ND, IB, IBD and TRT viral antigens compared to HI tests to ND, IB M41 and IB D274, or IDEXX test kits to IBD or TRT.

[0134] Tables 26 through 35 provide additional antibody titre results. TABLE 26 HI antibody titres to ND virus, determined by AHS. no. chicks with indicated 2log HI titre In- to ND virus sufficient age Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Serum one day 1 1 5 3 1 2 2 2 2 4 2 weeks 1 6 12 3 1 1 1 2 2 16 6 3 weeks 1 7 7 6 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 0 4 weeks 1 1 4 2 1 1 1 5 2 1 3 1 1 9 5 weeks 1 4 3 6 4 7 2 1 7 4 1 2 6 weeks 1 7 7 6 3 1 2 4 4 4 6 4 2

[0135] TABLE 27 HI antibody titres to IB M41 antigen, determined by AHS. no. chicks with indicated 2log HI titre In- to IB M41 antigen sufficient age Group 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Serum one day 1 3 2 4 1 2 3 5 1 1 2 weeks 1 1 3 3 5 8 4 2 1 7 11 5 3 weeks 1 2 2 7 10 3 2 2 3 3 9 3 4 4 weeks 1 10 9 3 1 2 14 5 4 1 5 weeks 1 7 3 6 3 1 1 3 2 11 3 6 2 2 6 weeks 1 6 10 4 4 2 11 10 2 1

[0136] TABLE 28 HI antibody titres to IB D274 antigen, determined by AHS. no. chicks with indicated 2log HI titre In- to IB D274 antigen sufficient age Group 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Serum one day 1 1 4 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 weeks 1 2 3 5 9 5 2 2 12 10 3 weeks 1 4 5 12 2 1 2 1 4 6 8 4 4 weeks 1 8 8 6 2 2 10 8 3 2 1 5 weeks 1 7 2 3 6 1 2 3 2 7 6 6 3 2 6 weeks 1 5 6 9 1 3 2 12 6 5 1

[0137] TABLE 29 Individual ELISA antibody titres to IBD virus, determined by AHS. ELISA antibody titre to IBD virus per group at various ages 1 day 2 weeks 3 weeks 4 weeks 5 weeks 6 weeks group group group group group group group group group group group group 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1124 531 0 0 0 0 38 33 567 342 564 644 1547 1927 0 2 0 0 174 57 648 368 826 809 1799 2076 2 25 0 0 299 299 648 653 1038 1004 2388 2584 8 38 0 0 570 325 954 907 1132 1012 2421 2989 8 38 0 0 577 564 1005 986 1279 1462 2453 3355 8 51 0 0 637 660 1024 1119 1314 1497 2529 3466 13 57 0 0 721 690 1084 1167 1418 1524 2704 4096 13 57 0 0 729 744 1114 1339 1550 1533 3199 4550 19 64 0 0 751 886 1128 1339 1683 1674 3600 5262 25 64 0 0 805 919 1152 1378 1701 1728 32 77 0 0 867 984 1183 1388 1719 1844 44 77 3 0 883 1031 1243 1456 1871 1853 44 111 15 3 929 1084 1247 1460 1888 1897 51 118 19 3 953 1141 1257 1577 1969 1987 57 118 57 8 968 1185 1538 1577 1987 1906 105 125 65 15 976 1261 1716 1972 2078 1996 118 125 80 15 984 1269 1762 1987 2195 2014 147 161 104 28 1000 1430 1767 448 2250 2123 161 168 137 28 1078 1690 1873 613 2387 2214 175 182 137 28 1567 1808 1875 1179 2432 2250 234 197 137 113 1681 2009 1903 1217 2885 2314 271 212 146 182 1772 2326 1993 1281 2968 2497 278 234 154 214 1862 2362 2062 1308 3033 3005 446 316 162 434 2011 3951 2654 1981 3616 3787

[0138] TABLE 30 Individual ELISA antibody titres to TRT virus, determined by AHS. ELISA antibody titre to TRT virus per group at various ages 1 day 2 weeks 3 weeks 4 weeks 5 weeks 6 weeks group group group group group group group group group group group group 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 6167 1627 465 0 0 1134 85 46 316 0 0 0 5889 2936 0 0 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 0 6096 4819 371 602 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 3542 1457 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 709 0 1036 1853 0 1686 0 0 153 0 342 0 0 0 3305 681 19 0 0 0 153 0 0 0 380 337 1784 295 371 0 0 0 0 0 342 0 204 161 7540 1332 2504 0 65 414 0 0 0 931 342 69 3899 840 227 740 241 0 0 0 781 0 123 0 9698 442 711 1612 346 0 383 0 19 0 0 0 346 0 213 0 55 0 275 0 881 0 565 0 0 376 0 0 709 0 0 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 289 0 0 500 1876 0 465 0 0 0 380 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 126 106 0 0 0 103 368 0 0 0 0 45 0 262 0 0 1669 442 0 0 0 0 0 1669 0 840 289 442 0 0 0 2620 0 0 0 120 0 499 0 0 0 1289 0 0 0 0 881 741 0 0 0 761 46 219 0 499 1063 1008 89 169 0 852 0 204 365 1161 0 227 0 282 0 781 0 0 89 1547 0 103 144 454 0 204 0 0 144 430 0 85 0 0 0 123 0 140 0

[0139] TABLE 31 Individual FAT titres to MD virus, determined by CVL. FAT titres to MD virus per group at various ages 1 day of age 2 weeks of age 3 weeks of age 4 weeks of age 5 weeks of age 6 weeks of age group group group group group group group group group group group group 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 800 ≧1600 100 200 100 400 100 ≧1600 800 200 800 800 400 800 50 400 neg. 400 200 800 800 50 ≧1600 800 ≧1600 800 50 200 100 200 100 200 400 ≧1600 800 800 800 800 neg. 400 400 ≧1600 200 ≧1600 800 ≧1600 400 800 400 200 100 400 50 400 100 400 200 400 800 800 800 ≧1600 100 200 50 800 800 800 ≧1600 ≧1600 800 ≧1600 400 400 100 100 50 800 200 ≧1600 800 400 800 ≧1600 ≧1600 ≧1600 100 100 50 ≧1600 50 800 400 800 ≧1600 ≧1600 ≧1600 800 50 50 400 800 800 800 400 800 ≧1600 800 400 800 50 200 400 400 100 800 ≧1600 800 800 800 50 100 100 800 400 100 200 ≧1600 ≧1600 800 100 200 200 200 50 400 ≧1600 400 ≧1600 ≧1600 50 100 400 100 100 ≧1600 800 800 ≧1600 800 50 200 200 ≧1600 800 800 ≧1600 800 ≧1600 800 50 200 50 400 100 ≧1600 ≧1600 800 ≧1600 ≧1600 100 200 400 200 100 200 400 ≧1600 400 ≧1600 100 200 200 200 200 400 ≧1600 800 ≧1600 ≧1600 50 200 100 200 800 ≧1600 800 ≧1600 400 ≧1600 50 50 200 ≧1600 400 400 400 400 ≧1600 ≧1600 100 100 100 400 ≧1600 800 800 800 100 ≧1600 50 100 200 200 400 50 400 400 ≧1600 ≧1600 neg. 100 200 200 400 400 ≧1600 ≧1600 200 ≧1600 50 100 50 400 50 ≧1600 ≧1600 800 ≧1600 ≧1600 neg. 100 100 800 800 400 ≧1600 400 ≧1600 ≧1600

[0140] TABLE 32 Individual ELISA antibody titres to ND virus, determined by BC. ELISA antibody titre to ND virus per group at various ages 1 day 2 weeks 3 weeks 4 weeks 5 weeks 6 weeks group group group group group group group group group group group group 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 6742 6546 901 1126 2507 258 1338 215 705 1563 3275 818 9414 8225 454 550 490 175 500 175 1954 351 543 4924 7434 6129 1689 576 245 175 179 2169 4934 6719 9252 377 10709 10884 1123 384 6093 199 262 235 1172 596 434 1623 5639 7348 1808 977 2278 2202 818 149 5709 1606 1427 1225 1874 5096 864 1185 73 182 162 235 1964 1682 2010 9378 9248 9033 1152 242 1957 1252 520 894 3457 2477 4477 1401 6510 4179 1199 1652 5828 325 401 702 2119 285 4076 818 7530 4997 735 801 215 225 5030 1960 3695 394 3623 3265 7990 8434 460 2477 209 149 2179 242 1864 801 3858 2374 1116 1010 5768 199 30 149 3176 242 2536 6990 1427 1785 126 4503 1533 182 1334 3884 586 791 1132 1652 2745 967 1063 1543 9305 1046 1136 884 1921 669 245 626 901 818 6090 2308 1079 149 752 775 215 225 871 50 222 4060 3192 139 1457 1669 639 566 745 318 3146 623 3291 3146 656 1099 1927 325 172 268 4222 1096 5205 3053 1073 1709 113 199 1182 182 1179 977 4149 944 3729 626 7477 242 1301 50 1079 437 8639 5305 656 583 2070 132 66 450 616 1334 5679 937 2715 917 447 242 179 460 6364 1470 2010 5424 983 993 3997 318 371 182 2073 877 1589 2374 2344 1093 430 325 96 126 3566 123 871 4467 358 1553 321 4295 2285 977 86 3536 851 63

[0141] TABLE 33 Individual ELISA antibody titres to IB virus, determined by BC. ELISA antibody titre to IBD virus per group at various ages 1 day 2 weeks 3 weeks 4 weeks 5 weeks 6 weeks group group group group group group group group group group group group 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3606 4019 609 700 671 504 496 354 1401 113 484 2230 8858 7858 71 179 496 629 233 329 4331 1071 375 338 8041 10238 671 629 671 434 596 434 1342 1784 442 538 7254 7199 171 296 321 308 233 225 513 263 171 3152 5386 6366 684 1105 221 1080 1296 179 825 338 4715 834 8458 3231 321 388 271 271 2639 746 267 438 484 634 4206 8296 896 504 521 700 196 1209 1863 1284 375 8075 3177 2364 534 1059 784 354 1751 1034 592 475 7212 1547 8267 6620 384 342 846 296 3039 1151 1384 163 117 3539 5911 5290 158 688 721 1255 1034 571 429 488 1276 6257 634 363 258 850 271 1601 742 1109 909 1372 984 988 959 1000 971 271 1984 475 5603 7141 521 667 521 2168 2526 988 1251 2943 1042 1684 496 817 258 467 884 342 742 1346 934 288 434 642 371 780 634 1255 975 1672 484 1109 521 467 333 688 884 446 1793 1447 3460 1409 384 780 1547 504 2289 780 346 200 1888 4786 796 1392 1676 513 308 192 688 659 1984 1868 183 1255 233 388 1184 1000 567 250 308 859 1109 563 1184 296 671 805 333 350 1342 1034 271 434 846 780 1713 133 525 450 158 5920 296 342 221 513 584 513 1492 375 196 3139 371 513 1009 1776 596 805 363 188 225 5619 434 467 1559 667 1372 967 238 175 267 513

[0142] TABLE 34 Individual ELISA antibody titres to IBD virus, determined by BC. ELISA antibody titre to IBD virus per group at various ages 1 day 2 weeks 3 weeks 4 weeks 5 weeks 6 weeks group group group group group group group group group group group group 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 4992 3837 352 674 129 166 8581 184 5384 7522 8305 6358 6396 3265 215 436 33 115 9353 7700 4798 6419 4698 7756 5302 4215 129 352 76 2558 3938 9419 5133 12583 7539 7472 8986 7267 730 45 26 29 1071 11617 4971 4881 7152 13687 2112 5817 926 528 50 100 59 8172 6510 3848 4612 5131 1829 5150 582 511 8044 174 121 4568 7488 7006 5047 5850 7548 3613 687 192 76 2188 3574 4800 11164 5825 5373 7140 1970 3624 644 769 186 158 2786 9591 4971 4383 7410 6833 3898 2243 323 174 352 201 5652 4340 5762 8615 3090 5946 3400 6978 76 1088 149 115 7776 6419 8829 333 7023 8192 323 133 26 6777 7469 8866 3925 6225 8818 9620 121 606 79 3455 9341 6336 5095 4822 7435 6261 129 380 26 100 938 6992 6947 9934 3450 5789 323 473 79 29 10310 5289 5825 5191 5398 2334 50 462 94 45 551 5474 5436 6688 8424 3592 404 316 102 108 4595 7435 4389 7533 7295 4868 243 380 264 93 9600 5828 5248 6627 6156 5523 344 325 18 38 8365 4090 5674 7006 8073 6128 753 52 50 29 9069 6491 9992 5861 5185 10466 215 209 205 68 5368 6444 6446 6103 6372 6297 571 235 94 115 2714 11605 5839 3893 5811 8840 139 425 79 2 5562 2047 5523 5047 6588 6945 861 262 112 3703 5781 2755 5471 2953 6065 7104 425 568 205 133 8177 4523 6599 3466 6421 5095

[0143] TABLE 35 Individual ELISA antibody titres to TRT virus, determined by BC. ELISA antibody titre to TRT virus per group at various ages 1 day 2 weeks 3 weeks 4 weeks 5 weeks 6 weeks group group group group group group group group group group group group 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 14811 1295 983 179 560 371 821 636 258 258 33 507 18017 3530 99 66 195 46 225 248 344 354 215 583 17444 6109 368 1334 99 401 238 513 460 497 517 1099 6566 5815 298 103 427 103 268 136 248 172 536 2023 19653 3338 99 2990 99 56 195 159 828 66 149 646 2626 1854 99 169 722 103 17 103 397 76 53 583 6285 288 146 219 56 136 99 401 560 291 129 411 1325 1162 4086 248 338 656 166 2119 119 76 20 497 7152 1467 447 626 540 169 318 626 86 225 387 119 17563 1083 470 1844 288 46 530 921 225 732 440 1281 480 209 166 483 407 533 685 593 1729 884 417 788 56 798 983 705 1609 205 526 1099 99 56 99 474 146 298 685 507 387 689 4460 103 629 103 99 7 291 368 656 152 99 103 99 7 579 228 106 195 106 646 156 877 298 331 510 411 20 109 20 517 447 228 540 106 407 169 387 109 1556 430 1132 513 268 66 175 563 987 464 924 550 348 381 136 533 288 411 1278 421 235 656 96 1083 679 103 298 381 656 368 772 1023 530 868 649 126 17 666 546 205 934 689 1146 17 99 103 99 103 526 195 33 626 2083 321 156 778 99 228 33 109 546 517 712 1305 397 96 166 258 258 109 53 109

[0144] Although the present invention has been described above in considerable detail, applicants desire the full extent of patent protection possible as defined and determined by the claims herein set forth, with reference to the above teachings but not limited to any particularly disclosed example, and in all events, consistent with the widest possible scope of the claim consistent with the spirit and scope of this application. 

What is claimed is:
 1. A method for protecting an avian host from TRT and/or TRT or SHS-related respiratory distress comprising administering a vaccine in ovo to a fertile egg containing an embryo of the avian host, said vaccine comprising an immunogenically-effective amount of a live, attenuated strain of turkey rhinotracheitis virus in the approximate range of from about 10^(3.2) TCID₅₀ per egg to about 10^(4.5) TCID₅₀ per egg, wherein said vaccine is administered on or before day 24 of incubation.
 2. The method of claim 1, wherein said immunogenically-effective amount is administered in a suitable vehicle of approximately 0.05 to 0.1 ml per egg.
 3. The method of claim 2, wherein the immunogenically-effective amount is about 10^(3.2) TCID₅₀ per egg.
 4. The method of claim 2, wherein the immunogenically-effective amount is about 10^(4.2) TCID₅₀ per egg.
 5. The method of claim 1, wherein said avian host is a turkey or chicken embryo.
 6. The method of claim 5, wherein said administration occurs on approximately day 18 of incubation (chicken) or approximately day 24 of incubation (turkey).
 7. The method of claim 3, wherein the avian host is either a turkey or a chicken embryo.
 8. The method of claim 7, wherein the avian host is a turkey embryo.
 9. The method of claim 7, wherein the avian host is a chicken embryo.
 10. A process for protecting turkeys and chickens from exposure to virulent strains of turkey rhinotracheitis virus, comprising administering in ovo to fertile eggs a vaccine comprising, on a per egg basis, an immunogenically-effective amount of a live, avirulent strain of turkey rhinotracheitis virus, wherein said administration results in a decrease in the percentage of eggs that hatch of less than about 2%.
 11. The process of claim 10, wherein the immunogenically-effective amount is in the approximate range of from about 10^(3.2) TCID₅₀ per egg to about 10^(4.2) TCID₅₀ per egg.
 12. An in ovo vaccine for protecting turkeys and/or chickens from exposure to virulent turkey rhinotracheitis virus, comprising a buffered solution containing, on a per egg basis, a live, attenuated strain of turkey rhinotracheitis virus in an immunogenically-effective amount of from about about 10^(3.2) TCID₅₀ to about 10^(4.2) TCID₅₀.
 13. The vaccine of claim 11, wherein the immunogenically-effective amount is efficacious against subsequent post-hatch exposure of the turkey an/or the chicken to virulent turkey rhinotracheitis virus; and produces substantially no decrease in the percentage of in ovo vaccinated turkey and/or chicken eggs that hatch upon the expiration of the incubation period.
 14. The vaccine of claim 13, wherein the immunogenically-effective amount is about 10^(4.2) TCID₅₀.
 15. A method for inoculating poultry against turkey rhinotrachetis disease which comprises administering an immunologically effective amount of a live, attenuated strain of TRT virus in a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier in ovo within the range of at least about 10^(3.2) TCID₅₀ per egg to about 10^(4.2) TCID₅₀ per egg.
 16. The method of claim 15, which further comprises administering together with said TRT at least one other vaccine selected from the group consisting of Newcastle Disease vaccine, and infectious bursal disease vaccine.
 17. The method of claim 16, further comprising administering at least one vaccine selected from the group consisting of infectious bronchitis vaccine and Marek's disease vaccine, wherein said vaccine is administered post-in ovo.
 18. The method of claim 17, wherein said post-in ovo vaccine is administered at approximately day 1 of age.
 19. The method of claim 15, wherein said method results in substantially no decrease in the number of eggs that hatch.
 20. The method of claim 15, wherein said method produces a decrease in the percentage of eggs that hatch of less than about 5%.
 21. The method of claim 21, wherein said method produces a decrease in the percentage of eggs that hatch of less than about 1%.
 22. A method of providing elevated titers to TRTV, which comprises formulating an in ovo vaccine of attenuated TRTV antigen, and administering said vaccine so as to provide a TCID₅₀ in the range of about 10^(3.2) to about 10^(4.5) per egg within a vehicle of approximately 0.05 to 0.1 mL per egg. 